There are two great religious traditions in the
world (which is not to say that there are not a number of
important religious traditions outside the two). They are, first
the Indian tradition, and, second, the Western. The Indian
tradition comprises the whole range of the religious experience
of India over the past 3000 years. This includes, of course,
Hinduism, a single name to cover an immense spectrum of religious
belief and practice. In addition, the Indian tradition gave birth
to Buddhism. Jainism, of course, belongs within the Indian
tradition. In the West the scene is dominated by Judaism,
Christianity and Islam, three religions which have close (though
not always harmonious) links, and which trace their origins back
to the ancient Middle East.

Before we look at the various religions
individually the differences between the two traditions must be
noted. Deeply rooted in India is the belief in reincarnation,
that belief that the essential part of the individual, the soul,
passes after death into a new body which is reborn as another
living being, perhaps human, perhaps not. Thus we all pass,
through almost endless ages, from one form of life to another,
the nature of our rebirth (including whether it is favorable or
unfavorable) being determined by the accumulated effects of our
actions, our attitudes, our mode of life, in previous lifetimes.
The accumulated effect of previous lives is called karma. We
cannot escape it and we are not free of it until each unit, so to
speak, of our karma has worked itself out in subsequent lives, by
which time it has, of course, been replaced by fresh
accumulations of the karmic forces.

By contrast the Western religions take the view
that we have only one life on earth which leads on to an eternal
afterlife, not always clearly defined but involving some idea of
reward (heaven) or punishment (hell) for our behavior on earth.

The other fundamental difference between the
Western and the Indian traditions lies in the nature of god. To
the Muslim, the Christian, the Jew, God is one, a single
all-powerful being who created the universe, watches over it,
controls it, and may be influenced by the prayers of men and
women. Indian thought is not so clear-cut on this issue. To most
Indian thinkers the idea of a single god, totally excluding all
others, is alien. The universe is often (but not always) seen as
self-subsisting, needing no creator nor controller. If, to some
schools of thought, god is in some way a unitary force or power,
this expresses itself in the many forms of many different gods.
Buddhism and Jainism do not accept the idea of god at all, at any
rate in a form that would be understood by adherents of other
religions: they have even been described as atheistic religions.
This is in fact rather an over simplification, as the student of
Jainism will appreciate.

Now let us look at the Jain religion in
relation to the other major religions. Jainism has, of course,
particularly close links with Hinduism. Although the teachings of
Mahavira represented a reaction against aspects of the rule of
contemporary Hindu religious leaders, yet for 2500 years since
Mahavira Jainism has been a living force, preserving the ancient
faith without becoming ossified, developing against the
background of a predominantly Hindu environment. For most of this
period Jains and Hindus have coexisted happily, with mutual
tolerance and respect. In many ways the Jain community has been
influenced by the customs and traditions of the larger Hindu
community. In matters of ritual as well as social customs the
influence is plain. Jain worship is directed fundamentally to the
Tirthankara, to the liberated and enlightened souls, to religious
teachers and monks. Yet some of the gods and goddesses of
Hinduism receive, in a different way, respect from many Jains.
Laksmi, the goddess of plenty, Sarasvati, the goddess of
learning, are revered in a way which does not seem contradictory
to the overriding respect and adoration due to the Tirthankara.
Jain influence on Hinduism must include non-violence and
vegetarianism Mahatma Gandhi, as is well-known, was deeply
influenced, particularly in his attitude to non-violence by the
Jains.

Jainism is often compared with Buddhism, indeed
Western scholars in the early nineteenth century often confused
the two. Certainly there are similarities. The Buddha and
Mahavira were near contemporaries and both reacted against the
over-rigid orthodoxy of the scholars of their time. The teachings
of both are preserved not in the classical Sanskrit but in the
colloquial languages in which they preached. Each laid down a
course of training leading to ultimate salvation, moksa or
nirvana. Both emphasized non-violence and strongly condemned the
killing of living creatures. In both Buddhism and Jainism the
order of monks and nuns is important. However the differences
between Jainism and Buddhism are considerable. Mahavira, it must
be remembered, was bringing new vigor into a religion already
ancient in his day. The Buddha was the founder of a new religion.
The course of spiritual training of the Jains lays much more
emphasis on austerity and rigorous self-discipline than the
'middle way' between ease and austerity in Buddhism. The great
philosophers of Jainism have evolved a view of the universe as
material and permanent, in strong contrast to the Buddhist view
that everything is illusory and transient. Illusory and transient
even is the individual soul: to the Buddhist nirvana or moksa
means the merging or extinction of individuality in an
undifferentiated final state, whilst to the Jain it is a
liberation of the soul into an individual state of total
knowledge and bliss.

Christianity and Judaism share a common
religious heritage for the early leaders of Christianity were
Jews who followed the call of Jesus Christ, himself a Jew. The
sacred scriptures of the Jews form the 'Old Testament' of the
Christian Bible. Judaism, like Jainism, is both a religion and a
community, a close-knit community with a way of life and worship
which keeps religion in a central place in society. Unlike
Jainism the religion of Judaism centers around the worship of a
single all-powerful creator God. The code of right and wrong is
strict but Judaism pays less attention to life after death than
almost any other religion.

To the Christians also God is one (though seen
in a mysterious way as having three aspects). Right conduct is
all-important, non-violence expressed as turning the other cheek
when an enemy strikes you, summed up in love for one's fellow men
and women, and this brings its reward after death in Heaven where
the individual soul passes eternity in the bliss of the presence
of God. One Christian writer on Jainism, though admiring much of
the Jain faith, felt strongly the lack of a personal god, a
refuge in time of trouble. Yet this is seen by others as a
strength of Jainism: the individual feels master of his fate, not
a dependent suppliant.

Islam is the newest of the three great
monotheistic religions; Here we see the power and unity of God
expressed in the strongest terms. To associate any other being
with God is the worst kind of heresy. The moral code is strict
and in its most fundamental form Islam lays down rules for every
aspect of human life. Islam does not shun the world, rather
rejoices in it as God's creation, but a paradise of unimagined
bliss awaits the faithful beyond death.

Are all religions equally true? That is a
difficult question. There are people who hold, passionately, that
they only have the truth and everybody else is wrong. At the
other extreme others distort the teachings of different religions
in an attempt to show that they all mean the same thing. Where
should a Jain stand? Obviously a convinced Jain will feel that
the teachings of Mahavira, as they have been interpreted and
developed over the past 2500 years, form the outstanding guide to
the nature of life and the universe and to the conduct which
leads to ultimate freedom. But a fundamental Jain belief is
anekantavada, that truth may be seen in different ways from
different viewpoints. So, to the Jain, confidence should not lead
to intolerance but to a sympathetic respect for the ways in which
followers of other faiths make their own approaches to truth.